MNSRC Presents IFAB's Laws of the Game, 2019-20 Changes, Part Three

Part three of a three-part presentation on the 2019-20 IFAB Changes to the Laws of the Game, as presented to referees in Minnesota for 2020 certification. Focus of this segment is on updates to the handling clause of Law 12.

[@afred007]

I like how the video explains the changes and shows videos on various calls/non-calls, and how they would be impacted with the change.

[@ianh4444]

Great video, some of the IFAB wording is really ambiguous, this really clears it up, especially with the video clips to help the explanations.

[@jonathangray9870]

Don’t agree with the commentary around the Wall player and his silhouette- his arm, though cocked at the elbow, clearly extends his body to be larger than ordinary when jumping. Therefore an offence has occurred and a penalty should be awarded

[@prioreofsion]

The updates to the handling section are a few steps backward. Every referee hates the phrase 'call it both ways ref'. this seems to imply that the same exact instance was called/not called. While this does happen, typically the situations are somewhat similar but have been interpreted differently based on severity, it was not/should not have been influenced by outcome. it was black and white, either it was determined to be deliberate or not. Now, unfortunately the same instance can and, per the new updates, should be be called differently based on the outcome.
Situation: opponent has a corner kick, i am located inside the penalty area and go to head the ball out and the ball makes non-deliberate contact with my arm.
aftermath:
1). ball falls near me and I clear it for a throw in -- no pk, resulting in a throw in for opponent
2). ball falls near me and I clear it through to my forward for a promising counter attack -- pk for opponent
3). ball falls near me and I dribble out for a counter and a promising attack -- pk for opponent
4). ball falls near a team mate and he dribbles out and keeps possession with no promising attack -- no pk play on.
now the ref has no argument for those saying call it both ways. the exact same play by the defender in this instance can/will/should be(?) called differently based on what happens after... this is not good. as seen in the exaggerated but plausible scenarios calling this can wildly change what happens in the game. this goes from a no call counter to a pk for the opposition.

[@pksublime]

The laws referenced an obvious goal scoring opportunity, not a promising attack. No obvious scoring opportunity exists in your own penalty area. All four scenarios you list are no pk and play on with the throw-in for the first scenario the natural result of play.

[@prioreofsion]

Patrick Little so a few minor things, the law says goal scoring opportunity not an obvious goal scoring opportunity, it may seem a bit pedantic but they spend a considerable amount of time on these laws and excluded that word. Also, 2:00 the presenter says the law was put in to place to remove any doubt wether contact ‘in the build up to a goal should be permitted’. Any contact that Leads to a goal is a dfk offense. That is the phrase which includes the dismissed points.